Christians. Could you be wrong?

[Huggy Bear]

Citing the Bible to prove your god's existence is much like citing a murderer's protestations of innocence as you find him innocent.

Also, it's even funnier coming from a guy who describes himself as believing in "god, not religion". Which Bible are you citing, formulated by which religion, voted upon by which men?

You believe yourself iconocalstic, yet you sup from the spoon all the same.

You still don't get it, my point in quoting Jesus is that he's the only "religious" figure to state that the same miracles he preformed, his followers would be able to do.

No other religion makes that claim. Because they simply can't.

[Ryantology]

You still don't get it, my point in quoting Jesus is that he's the only "religious" figure to state that the same miracles he preformed, his followers would be able to do.

No other religion makes that claim. Because they simply can't.

Claims don't mean a tin shit. I don't recall any evidence of Christians having the ability to control the weather or magically make food appear out of thin air.

And, if the best argument for accepting your religion is avoiding the nightmarish retribution of the blackmailing tyrant you worship, then you don't have any good arguments.

[professor]

Baqal and rasetsu,
I have a question.
How sure are you that your name is what you and others have been calling yourself since you were born?
Would you be afraid to say you have absolute knowledge of your own name?

How about this question:
Are there absolutes in the world?

[Huggy Bear]

You still don't get it, my point in quoting Jesus is that he's the only "religious" figure to state that the same miracles he preformed, his followers would be able to do.

No other religion makes that claim. Because they simply can't.

Claims don't mean a tin shit. I don't recall any evidence of Christians having the ability to control the weather or magically make food appear out of thin air.

I would argue that you never met a "real christian". The Bible has always stated that the "elect" would be few in number. Only 2 people out of the original 2 million that left Egypt made it into the promised land.

[Minimalist]

Also Christianity is the only "religion" where it's God states:
John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Er, you do understand that your godboy never wrote anything and that those words were written by whoever the fuck wrote "john" whenever the fuck he wrote it?

Probably not. You sound like a Shithead First Class.

[Dystopia]

This thread is asking for theists to come up with some modified version of Pascal's wager... 'If I believe and I am wrong, nothing will happen, I'll cease to exist', if I don't believe and I am wrong, I will perish in hell'. Counter argument - Probability of any religion being right V probability of irreligious people being right

[Huggy Bear]

Also Christianity is the only "religion" where it's God states:
John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Er, you do understand that your godboy never wrote anything and that those words were written by whoever the fuck wrote "john" whenever the fuck he wrote it?

Probably not. You sound like a Shithead First Class.

Actually he wrote the book of Revelation using John as a scribe, Which is why it's titled the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

[Rob_W75]

As an atheist I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. God may exist. Your Bible may be 100% accurate. All I need is evidence.

Is there anything that could convince you that the God of the Bible may not exist?

The real question is what are the consequences for a Christian being wrong VS an Atheist.

If a Christian is wrong there are no consequences, in fact he\she will never realize it. If an Atheist is wrong then he\she has eternal separation to look forward to...Even if they are right, the future is still pretty bleak.

Atheism is just a lose/lose situation.

A Christian is under no obligation to try and convince anyone or provide proof. Their only obligation is the seek out the lost sheep.

John 10:26
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep


A person is born as either a sheep or a goat. A sheep needs no convincing they just need the opportunity to hear the truth and they will believe it, its just that simple. The goat is the stubborn one, always wanting to butt it's head up against something, and no matter how hard you try you can't turn a goat into a sheep..Not gonna happen.

Personally speaking, I've seen plenty of evidence, there isn't a question in my mind on if what I believe is true. The problem is, faith is required to produce the evidence, which is why Paul stated that the gospel came not in word form only, but also in power and demonstration. You just need the prerequisite of faith to make it work.

Also as a side note, faith has nothing to do with religion, anyone is capable of having faith, as documented by the "placebo effect".

OP here. Yes, I do understand Pascal's Wager. However, what I want to know is will you admit that you might be wrong about God?

[Minimalist]

Your ignorance of your writings is astonishing.

I suggest you read Bart Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted" and learn something.

Right now, you are making a fool of yourself.

[vorlon13]

I've seen rather weak and tepid defenses raised in regards to Christian Cafeteriaism. As a topic rarely, if ever addressed in pulpits for fear of panicking the pew warmers, the level of awareness of the issue in the community at large is quite low.

When they have their noses vigorously rubbed in it, I do see some concern fleetingly crossing their minds. At another forum last summer, a Christer was having quite a time with his denominations proposal to allow openly gay clergy. I just persisted in making him explain how the proposal in anyway would falsify his religion any further than the current practice of allowing divorced and remarried clergy in their churches, and for their churches to perform the sacrament of marriage for individuals on a subsequent marriage.

He would go as far as saying he was concerned about his church's position on remarriage, but not one millimeter further. He would not address any connection between allowing remarrieds and disallowing homosexuals, even after acknowledging Jesus only addressed the former in the negative, and the latter not at all.

Contemplating grievous error in one's religion is a very difficult thing to do. It is far easier to note when the other church on the corner from yours is fucking up than to deal with clear, concise, and accurate Biblical proof your own religion is in a state of apostasy.